Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Reed v. General Mills, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

September 10, 2019

BRUCH REED et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
GENERAL MILLS, INC. et al., Defendants.

          Attorneys for Plaintiffs Stephen M. Raab, Gutride Safier LLP Marie A. McCrary, Esq. (pro hac vice) Gutride Safier LLP.

          Attorneys for Defendants Charles C. Sipos Lauren E. Staniar, David T. Biderman, pro hac vice forthcoming Perkins Coie LLP.

          ORDER

          JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter comes before the Court on the parties' agreement regarding discovery of electronically stored information (“ESI”) (Dkt. No. 42). The Court ENTERS the following:

         A. General Principles

         1. An attorney's zealous representation of a client is not compromised by conducting discovery in a cooperative manner. The failure of counsel or the parties to litigation to cooperate in facilitating and reasonably limiting discovery requests and responses raises litigation costs and contributes to the risk of sanctions.

         2. The proportionality standard set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) must be applied in each case when formulating a discovery plan. To further the application of the proportionality standard in discovery, requests for production of ESI and related responses should be reasonably targeted, clear, and as specific as possible.

         3. Nothing herein shall relieve the parties of any obligations they may have to search for responsive documents in hard copy form.

         B. ESI Disclosures

         Two weeks after entry of this order, the parties shall disclose:

         1. The Status of Custodian Selections.

         The parties acknowledge that custodian selection will benefit from thorough and expeditious investigation, which is ongoing at the time of this filing. The parties agree to report on the status of custodian selection two weeks after the entry of this order, and further agree to keep each other apprised as custodian selection unfolds. As soon as practicable, but no later than September 13, 2019, the parties will disclose the five custodians most likely to have discoverable ESI in their possession, custody, or control. The custodians shall be identified by name, title, connection to the instant litigation, and the type of the information under his/her control. The parties shall limit their document collection to these custodians in the first instance; they agree to entertain reasonable requests for additional, non-overlapping custodians after the parties have had an opportunity to review the document productions from the five custodians selected and assess whether there are additional custodians whose files are likely to contain appreciable volumes of unique, responsive documents.

         2. Non-custodial Data Sources.

         A list of non-custodial data sources (e.g., shared drives, servers, etc.), if any, likely to contain discoverable ESI.

         3. Third-Party Data Sources.

         A list of third-party data sources, if any, likely to contain discoverable ESI (e.g., third-party email and/or mobile device providers, “cloud” storage, etc.) and, for each such source, the extent to which a party is (or is not) ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.